Does Belarus need an independence? by Ruslan Ostashko

On July 3rd, the Republic of Belarus once again celebrated an anniversary of its independence. Or rather, given an economic situation, would it be justifiable to put the word “independence” in quotation marks?

“Belarus was raised from the ruins and ashes (after the Great Patriotic War, S.H.) by people who came here to live and work from different parts of the Soviet Union.

Many of them have created families here, built houses, and found a second home.

They have become new post-war generations rooted in this land.”

Tell me what do you hear in his words?

I hear a recognition of the fact that without Soviet internationalism, Belarus, erased by the Nazis to the ground, would never have come back to life. Against this historical background, the following phrases of Lukashenko sound like a call for a reunification, don’t they?

“All this has connected our people with the people of the USSR with blood ties.

That is why the phrase “fraternal nation” for Belarusians is not an empty phrase, or a figure of speech.

This Slavic unity will never be able to be broken and defeated by anyone!”

My previous video about a probability of Belarus being accepted as a part of Russia was widely met with “bayonets” by the viewers. And although this video got several times more likes than average, many comments say that this will never happen.

Here are some comments I have got:

“Frankly, to all the “unifiers,” here and in Russia, I would say: a career of any politician in Belarus, who would bring up the idea of joining the Russian Federation, will be immediately over. This is a reality. And your comments about “district or autonomy” only bring up feeling of rage. “

“We’re Belarusians – expletive!!! You have already reunited with Ukraine… You’ll be re-uniting us only in pieces. Also… The part of Belarus that will reunite with you, will be happy to start knifing you.”

“When I read these commentary, I feel terrible… In a blink of an eye your homeland will be given away by a hundred of stupid sheep, for nothing. Believe me, people, there is nothing good in Russia. Being there, will be much worse than it is now. Don’t you understand it? Why my Belarus has such an appalling fate?”

Does this sound familiar?

Like…

“I, myself, am Crimean, a daughter of an officer…”

[Ostashko refers to an epic blunder made by an internet troll working from some NATO military base during the reunification of Crimea. He failed to re-login and was posting anti-reunification posts as a Russian woman from his account as a male American. Since then, a phrase “an officer’s daughter” is used as a marker for Western info-war “warriors”. S.H.]

Or…

“I myself Litvinka, great-granddaughter of Yanka Kupala.”

I will not reply to everyone, otherwise with video will go on for three hours. First, the real sentiments of Belarusians about the reunification with Russia can be found not among anonymous YouTube commentators, some of whom probably write those comments for 3 euro-kopecks per post, but from sociological surveys. Lukashenko knows the results of those surveys, for sure. So, you can make noises all you want here, it won’t affect the reality.

Secondly, vast numbers of Belarusians work in Russia. They don’t just work here, they settle here with us. They get married, buy houses, they stay. They are not rushing back home. Why? In Belarus, it’s very hard to find a job. I also know the state of affairs in Belarusian villages, where they have three students per class in schools.

Let’s be honest, Belarus simply is not making it as an independent nation. It can’t afford it.

Reach people residing in Minsk can squeal that it is not true, because they didn’t learn anything from the experience of the wealthy people in Kiev, but the Belarusian countryside has its own different opinion about the independence. “Europe is the best, the best option for the people,” – squawks a commentator under my first video on this topic. To write something like this statement one must be either a foreign agent, or an alternatively gifted person.

“In just 27 years, we lost almost a million inhabitants of Lithuania,” the Director of the European Institute at Kaunas University of technology Vigaudas Usackas doesn’t hide his concern over the situation.

He admitted that able-bodied people aged 15 to 64 years are fleeing the country, while the number of pensioners who left in 2016 was only 1% of the total number of immigrants.

According to the latest data, 57.2 thousand people left Lithuania in 2017, which is comparable to the population of still existing city of Alytus.

The main reason for emigration is the decline of the economy.”

Guys, this is what awaits Belarus, if it does not live within its means. Which would mean cutting costs and increasing revenues. Belarusian goods are not needed in the EU, you know this without me. The Russian huge market absorbs everything. But this will continue only on conditions that would convince Moscow that Minsk won’t stab her in the back with a knife by abandoning the “multi-vector politic.”

Do you know why Yeltsin’s family still lives and is not poor, although tens of millions of Russians hate them?

Because, Putin gave them his guarantees, and he keeps his word.

If tomorrow such guarantees will be issued to Lukashenko, who continues to bargain, the Belarusian media will change its tune, and a year later in a referendum on reunification with Russia, people will vote in the same way as they voted at the election of the President of Belarus. I have no idea how it will be packaged in terms of PR, but it is a reality. In popular political Telegram-channels there are endless discussions of an upcoming battle for Belarus. The battle is not military, of course, but political and under the rug.

But it’s coming.

And Lukashenko’s public statements confirm this.

“Moscow is in a hurry to replace Surikov, who shares with Zurabov a title of the worst diplomats of Russia. Babich is in a process of approval. Lukashenko is afraid of a strong ambassador and procrastinates. In 2005, Lukashenko annulled an agreement on the Russian Ambassador Dmitry Ayatskov, who never made it to Minsk. Russia was without an ambassador for several months. Babich’s candidacy was discussed during the last telephone conversation of the presidents. It’s not very clear. Putin is in a hurry before the Duma holiday to appoint a strong diplomat to the Belarusian front. It is the front. In coming months, a tough battle for Belarus will begin.”

“Meanwhile, Lukashenka called the President. In words, he agrees to our terms, with small reservations.”

“After Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Kazakhstan, Belarus is preparing to purge its elite and reformat its external and, most importantly, its internal agendas.”

In conclusion, a video that will cause not compatible with life trauma to all zmagars. [Zmagars in Belarus are the same type, as Ukros in Ukraine.]

Video was taken in Belarusian Grodno after the Russian national football team victory over the Spaniards.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

32 Comments

It’s only a matter of time before Belarus rejoins Russia. It’s inevitable. I always had trouble understanding why it was outside Russia.

Yes, NATO and Soros backed NGO’s will do their utmost to prevent this. They were hoping to pull a Maidan in Belarus and bring it into the EU and NATO, so that NATO could place itself right alongside Russia’s borders. I saw some of those anti-Lukashenko “demonstrations” in Minsk. Soros and his pals brought a few hundred trouble makers into the streets, who achieved nothing except prove how weak and unpopular they are. The mere fact that there was no Maidan in Belarus is proof that the country can go only one way, and that is towards Russia.

The EU accused Lukashenko of being the “last dictator” in Europe. A compliment indeed. He kept Belarus out of the EU and NATO and prevented Western corporations plundering of the country. He deserves every compliment.

Andrew MacGregor
Correct. It began with the English Civil War of the 17th century, when Zionist bankers in Holland used their agent in England, Oliver Cromwell, to provoke an insurrection. King Charles I payed with his head. When “Parliament” won, the Zionists were permitted to return to England after being expelled by Edward I in the 13th century. This classic method of internal subversion was used in the American “Revolution” of 1776, when the Rothschilds used their agent George Washington to start an insurrection against the British Crown. After that came the French “Revolution” of 1789, when the French king payed with his head and continued with the Russian “Revolution” in 1917, when the Czar was killed in the most brutal fashion. This method was also used in Kiev in 2014. We now have Poroshenko, who has US citizenship, impersonating the “President” of the country and being detested by the majority.

Such methods are still used. A minority is used to terrorize the majority. This works because you can organize and train a minority, which is almost impossible with the majority.

The big man, potato farmer that he is, can live out a peaceful life, deliver a just future for his fellow citizens, and become an historic leader who saved his republic from destabilization and ruin.

His love for his own neck, his children and grandchildren will determine things.

When the US sh*t hits the Belarusian fan, as it will soon, it will be late for deals.
He will be on the Yanukovich express, running for his life and hoping the FSB spetsnaz can locate him in the dark of the night and get him to Rostov like the Ukrainian president.

Just continuing to read (listen on Books on Tape) to the Catherine the Great bio, with chapters on the various campaigns she undertook, or that Potemkin undertook for her, to pacify and “annex” Noverossiya and other contiguous areas (incluidng I think Belarus, that is part of the Polish chapter . . .)

Anyhow, reason I mention t his is that in the very same era (1760s and 1770s) the American colonies were fighting for independence—and for the right to form their own country and their own empire. They were immediately expansionist and practically matched the expansionism of the Russian empire degree longitude in the opposite direction (west vs. east) and degree latitude in pretty much the same direction (south/southwest and some southeast). The Russian empire under CAtherine/Potemkin created all of the basic infrastructure of Ukraine: the cities, the ports on the Dnipr, the shipyards, the harbors, the military installations.

The British asked Catherine to sign a defensive/offensive treaty whereby the Russians would send troops to help the British gain the upperhand against the colonists. In return Britain would “grant” Russia some territories along the Black Sea (!)***. CAtherine declined to get involved in helping Britain retain her overseas colonies. She had her own fish to fry on Russia’s borders. Like, gaining territory from the Turks. Which was done via some battles and some treaties. The annexation of Crimea in 1783 was via treaty, i .e., peaceful. New mosques were built for the Muslim portion of the motley population there.

It just doesn’t look like there is a “Ukrainian” people: the closest thing would seem to be Ruthenian. Seems to me that the “Ukrainians” of the 19th century (e.g., Gogol) were the descendants of Russians who had migrated there, or the descendants of others who had been “russianized” as a result of the incorporation of the area into the Russian empire.

It is as ludicrous for Russia to give up Crimea/Ukraine as it would be for the USA to give Texas back to Mexico. As ludicrous as the USA to think it has a claim on controlling Belarus as it would be for Russia to create offshore military installations in the international waters of the Atlantic and Pacific.

Or, the Union to let the Confederacy go and have a “foreign” power, a slave power, on its southern flank.
The NATO strategists of course play dumb.

**A thought-provoking comment in I think the “Crimea” Wiki entry is that the Crimean War was a chapter in the process of European great powers jockeying to gain control of parts of the weakening Ottoman Empire.

https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/crimean-war :
“The Peace of Paris, signed on March 30, 1856, preserved Ottoman rule in Turkey until 1914, crippled Russia, facilitated the unification of Germany, and revealed the power of Britain and the importance of sea power in global conflict. It had a major influence on the conduct of the American Civil War. The use of the term Crimean and a fascination with striking events such as “the Charge of the Light Brigade,” have obscured the scale and significance of the conflict.

A. D. Lambert”

So, it seems like the idea of the Crimean War to keep the Ottoman Empire going until a better opportunity arose for western European powers to smash it and pick it clean and shut Russia out. From this point of view, the Bolshevik revolution was timed perfectly to distract Russia from pursuing its own interests in annexing contiguous portions of the Ottoman empire, in particular those on the Black Sea.
So, the attempt to “contain” Russia seems to be a very long project.
Think how different things would look now and would have looked in WW1 if Russia had already controlled Istanbul and access to the Med. There would nave been no “Gallipoli,” no Young Turks, probably no Balfour Declaration because Palestine would have been under Russian control, not British. Or, it would have been a major war aim of the “Allies” to wrest control of Istanbul from the Russians, as it was to smash the Ottoman Empire completely and snatch for themselves the valuable pieces.

So, seems obvious that one way or another Putin has to maintain some kind of working relationship with Erdogan, to ensure continued passage through the Bosporus.

I’m also interested in some Russian opinions to this. What little I’ve learned about Kazakhstan (as an American) from an ethnically-Russian friend who fled that dunghole (Almaty, I think) in the 90’s leads me to believe that union is highly unlikely. Tens or even hundreds of thousands of ethnic-Russian people were raped and slaughtered by the locals during the destruction of the USSR. Totally different situation to Belarus. Still, I’d love to hear other opinions.

This book is probably as good a place as any to start. Again, I’m not an expert and someone who lives/lived there should have better sources. I just found this on yandex and skimmed it. http://ru.b-ok.org/book/881138/f30e73

Anonymous
In the name of Belarus you will find the word “RUS”. The word is of Scandinavian origin, as Swedish Vikings united the Slavic confederations of Russia, and it was used to give Russia it’s name. The name of Russia means “The Land of the Vikings”, which surprisingly few people know.

In the context of Belarus, the name “RUS” means “Russian”. This means Belarus will find it’s rightful place in Russia. The US and Soros will object, but in the end will get used to it.

When it comes to Ukraine, at least 70 % of Ukraine is composed of historic Russian lands. Ukrainians are descendants of Russians and 90 % of all words in the Ukrainian “language” are Russian.

BF, actually as far as I know Rus in some parts of Slav speaking Europe means simply Blond. You may find a last name in Bulgaria such as Rusevtsy or Rusey, which means blonds and has nothing to do with Russia. The name Rusy (Russians) was simply given to them by souther Slavs, who happened to mix in with Brunet non-slav people of southern Europe who happened to lose their Slav “blondness” (Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians).
Poles and Red/White Russians were true representatives of Slavs and were blonds. Vikings brought the yellow hair.
Now as far as the video is concerned, I agree with the author, Belo (White) – Russians are Russians just like the Ukrainians, who got brainwashed into thinking that they are not Russians.
As far as Polish influence in those regions (notice I refuse to call them countries) it exists. Poland put on an extremely high pressure in Belo-Rus during elections trying to stir the $hit with their anti Lukashenko and anti Russian propaganda. Just like it happens in Litva (Lithuania) and Lotva (Latvia). I am not talking about Estonia, because they most likely consider themselves close to Finns.

Anonius
One more time: Swedish Vikings unified the Slavic confederations of Russia. it’s a historical fact. The original Russian nobility was made up of Swedish Vikings, with some Finnish, who assimilated and became Russians. Russia is derived from the Scandinavian word “RUS”, which is still in use. All Russian blonds are derived from Swedish Vikings, and they certainly look Scandinavian. Yes, the name “RUS”, besides meaning “Russian”, can certainly mean blond, as it was inspired by blond Russians.

Western historians have a habit of negating the Scandinavian influence in Russia, concentrating on the Mongol invasions. Yes, Mongols were there, but not in great numbers, as they basically had garrisons in Russia, with the actual Mongol armies being somewhere else.

“Yes, Mongols were there, but not in great numbers, as they basically had garrisons in Russia, with the actual Mongol armies being somewhere else.”

Can you be more specific as to where the horde “lived” and where they had “garrisons”? . I thought the Horde basically consisted of mobile “garrisons” i.e., fighting and living units. Certainly the Horde was an ongoing presence for centuries in what later became lands of the Russian empire: along the Volga, into Siberia, in present-day Ukraine, along the Black Sea, in Crimea, etc. Present-day Tatars are supposed to be descendants of the mongol Horde, although there were lots of other ethnic elements in the Horde besides Mongols.

Re the etymology of “Rus,” Wiki has this to say (I have no way to assess the reliability):
“Etymology
Main article: Rus’ (name)
Europe in the 9th century. Roslagen is located along the coast of the northern tip of the pink area marked “Swedes and Goths”.

According to the most prevalent theory, the name Rus’, like the Finnish name for Sweden (Ruotsi), is derived from an Old Norse term for “the men who row” (rods-) as rowing was the main method of navigating the rivers of Eastern Europe, and that it could be linked to the Swedish coastal area of Roslagen (Rus-law) or Roden, as it was known in earlier times.[6][7] The name Rus’ would then have the same origin as the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden: Ruotsi and Rootsi.[8] ”

Wiki also states:

“The Rus’ (Slavic: Русь, Greek: Ῥῶς) were an early medieval group, who lived in a large area of what is now Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and other countries, and are the ancestors of modern East Slavic peoples. The Rus’ were a Swedish Viking tribe that came from what is today Roslagen of modern day Sweden. According to both contemporary Byzantine and Islamic sources and the Primary Chronicle of Rus’, compiled in about A.D 1113, the Rus’ were Norsemen who had relocated “from over sea”, first to northeastern Europe, creating an early polity that finally came under the leadership of Rurik.[1][2]

Later, Rurik’s relative Oleg captured Kiev, founding Rus’, academically known as Kievan Rus’.[3][4] The descendants of Rurik were the ruling dynasty of Rus’ (after 862), and of principalities created in the area formerly occupied by Kievan Rus’, Galicia-Volhynia Principality (after 1199), Chernigov, Novgorod Republic, Kingdom of Rus (1253–1349), Vladimir-Suzdal, Grand Duchy of Moscow, and the founders of the Tsardom of Russia.[5] ”

I recall seeing a documentary many years ago that showed the advance of Viking/Scand traders along the rivers of Russia, getting as far as Constantinople. And establishing some kind of mercantile trading center there.
There is a good map here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_trade_route

Looking at it one says: Of course! There doesn’t appear to be any significant barrier between Scandenavia and the Black Sea. The mountains are all to the southwest.

So it sounds as though the Vikings/Rus and the Mongols/Golden Horde were present and active in the area that became the Russian Empire more or less simultaneously, though Vikings got there much earlier.

Kathryn, I would like to add regarding Mongols. Mongol empire is a made in the West Fiction. Mongols never had the population to create an Empire. The way they operated was as follows. Say a band leader (Khan), like Genghis would convince other band leaders to gang up together. Their joint army would most likely be not bigger than few thousand horsemen. Because they never worked the fields or engaged in any form of trade or production, they would decide to attack some ruler and force him to pay regular ransom as well as give them “yassir” in the form of females and young boys to replenish the lost warriors. They would move from one place to another like the locust and steal. Then they would withdraw to their home yurts (animal skin tents). This is the true representation of what the West calls Mongol Empire. And yes they never had the population to really change the genetics of the subdued (you notice I use the word subdued and not conquered) territories. Also, they could not afford to leave more than handful of “watchers” at the subdued ruler’s place.

Katherine
Thank you for your comment. You are not the first one who has written to me about the meaning of the word “Rus”, ie. that it means “rowers”. Well, it means more than that. When I use the word “Rus”, I always say it’s a Scandinavian word, as it’s also used in Norway, where you have “Russ” celebrations.

The word needs to be placed inside it’s historical context. Norwegian Vikings sailed the oceans, and they were the best Viking sailors. Swedish Vikings sailed the rivers of the East, and on rivers you indeed needed “rowers”. Therefore, what does the name of Russia mean, bearing in mind it’s derived from the word “Rus” ? Maybe “The Land of Rowers” ? Of course not, as that would be pretty funny and strange. The word “Rus” is not only Scandinavian, it is also a direct reference to Swedish Vikings who sailed the rivers of Russia and who unified the Slavic confederations of Russia. Therefore from “Rus” you get “Russia”, which means “The Land of the Vikings”. If not, then what does it mean ?

BF, I do not argue the point that Rurik (Ruryk in Russian and Polish) (the first Russian king and a starter of long lasting Russian dynasty) is said to be a Viking, but this does not mean that the Red Russians (Russians) were Vikings so put it to rest will you? All it took, was a guy with heavy sword and broad axe (which Vikings were good at swinging) and a thousand warriors with their women (who also swung the weapons) to displace local ruler and and take control over the territory, Kiev in this case. It is also said that there was a small Viking settlement near modern Moskva (Moskow) on the Volga River. They (Eastern Vikings of modern Sweden and likely Finland) used both big rivers like Don and Volga to travel to Constantinople to trade. If they were all Vikings as you insist on saying then Russians would be speaking Norse today just like the Swedes and not Russian, which they do.

Anonius
Please do not play with my words. I never said that Russians are Vikings, but they do possess 40 % Swedish Viking blood. Explain why all Russian blonds look Scandinavian. The English possess 40 % Norwegian and Danish Viking blood, but nobody called the English Vikings.

I decided to add that southern Slavs call it the same way, I am not familiar with Czech language, but Poles call a blond man = Blondyn, and woman = Blondynka. Poles used Latin until about XIII century, hence many adopted Latin words.

Possibly, as Poles accepted their Catholic Christianity from Holy Roman Empire, which was a Germanic Empire. Poles had more ties with Germans (good and bad) throughout their history than they would like to admit. In the XVII Century the ties were with Austria, which people forget that it was an Eastern Germany (OsterReich), as the name suggests. OK the name was somewhat changed today.

Ann
The Baltic states were always culturally connected to Germany. They wanted to leave the Soviet Union, which was logical. After they became independent, between 25 % and 30 % of their populations emigrated, as these tiny states found themselves in economic difficulties, which was also logical.

The populations in the Baltic states experienced what I call “the communist syndrome”, thinking that all they had to do was renounce communism and have prosperity bestowed upon them overnight. Much of the same happened in Ukraine. They all received the opposite, a minority enriching themselves ant the expense of the majority. Now Russia is becoming very appealing. I don’t know what will happen to the Baltic states, but I have a good idea what will happen with Belarus and Ukraine.

“The populations in the Baltic states experienced what I call “the communist syndrome”, thinking that all they had to do was renounce communism and have prosperity bestowed upon them overnight. Much of the same happened in Ukraine.”

How many people from the Baltic states now living in Western Europe are seriously considering moving back? I would wager most Baltic ex-pats are ether poor students or families struggling to survive working unskilled blue collar jobs. The native German, French, or British people view these East European immigrants as culturally inferior people. How many of them are currently experiencing a form of Paris Syndrome?

Belarus has always been part of the Russian Empire. It has no history as an independent nation. The current arrangement (partial autonomy) is historically normal, and Lukashenko seems to understand reality pretty clearly.

USA has always been part of the British Empire…until it was not anymore. Panta rei. Nihil suo statu manet – Nothing stays the same forever. And never in history there was a reconstitution of a broken empire.

Going by comments, it seems quite a few people here are pro-Empire as long as the Empire is Russian.Personally I think imperialism itself is a flawed political model.

A lot of speculation taking place without taking into account what people in Belarus want or for that matter what the Russian Federation want(I don’t think presuming that the RF wants these territories back by default is correct).Or for that matter whether such a union would actually benefit either party.

“Let’s be honest, Belarus simply is not making it as an independent nation. It can’t afford it.”

Looking at a map of Europe, I wonder how many small European countries can no longer afford it. Look at all the countries that once comprised the Austro-Hungarian empire. How can those countries survive economically? For example, Austria has 9 million people, is mostly mountains,and has few natural resources. What about Slovakia? How do they manage? Look at the countries that used to be part of Yugoslavia. How
can Slovenia or Croatia afford independence? With what other countries can they band together?

The Western elites have a keen interest in keeping the Eastern European states small and weak. However, neither Poland nor Ukraine are small. They would, in theory, be harder for Washington and London to control. The same can be said about Turkey.

If Lukashenko is afraid of a Ukraine-style maiden, wouldn’t the Belarussian elites work hard to steal all that they can carry out of the country and then flee to remote resorts in South America? Or are they stealing now in preparation for re-unification with Russia? As an aside, it really does not matter what the people want, but what the elites of both Russia and Belarus want. Go ahead and have that referendum!

The top ‘elite’ of Russia, the President Putin has said he was a democrat(someone who supports a democratic political system) to the core so even if what you say is true, I don’t see how the others(elites) are going accomplish what they want through undemocratic means.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.